Screening
Read resumes for evidence instead of matching keywords
Read a resume as a compressed account of work, not a keyword inventory. Start with the role outcomes, then look for clues about comparable problems, personal ownership, context, and learning. Distinguish what the document supports from what requires a conversation. Record one evidence-based reason to proceed and the most important uncertainty to test next.
On this page
Begin with the scorecard
Review the role’s essential outcomes before opening applications. Choose the few signals a resume can reasonably show. This prevents the first impressive profile from resetting the standard and stops reviewers from rewarding whatever is easiest to recognise. Keep the scorecard beside the document and assess each candidate against the role, not against the previous candidate.
Trace outcome, action, and context
Look for the problem addressed, what changed, what the person personally did, and the setting around it. Numbers can add context but should not be assumed comparable across organisations. A short bullet may still reveal a useful decision or responsibility. When ownership is unclear, write a specific interview question rather than choosing the most flattering interpretation.
Treat career structure carefully
Titles vary, team sizes differ, and some organisations describe individual contributors as managers. Examine scope through decisions, collaborators, and progression. Gaps, changes, or shorter periods may have many explanations and should not become character judgments. Focus on evidence relevant to the role and ask only questions appropriate to assessing that work.
Separate clues from conclusions
A known employer, university, certification, or exact tool can guide a question but does not prove performance. An unfamiliar organisation does not prove weak standards. Mark each observation as supported evidence, plausible transfer, or unknown. This small discipline reduces confidence built from brand recognition.
- Comparable problem is visible.
- Personal ownership is distinguishable.
- Context explains the scale.
- Unknown becomes a precise question.
Compare two resume bullets
Illustrative example: one candidate writes that they supported a national rollout; another describes sequencing 18 site launches, resolving training delays, and owning the weekly readiness decision. The second bullet supplies clearer ownership, but the first is not rejected. The reviewer asks what part of the rollout they controlled, who depended on them, and which tradeoff they made.
Leave an auditable note
Write a concise screening note with relevant evidence, the important gap, and the next recommendation. Avoid labels such as not polished, job hopper, or weak pedigree. A colleague should be able to understand the decision without seeing the reviewer’s private intuition. Periodically sample notes across reviewers to find inconsistent standards and unsupported shorthand. When a resume is sparse, distinguish absence of detail from absence of experience. Decide whether the available evidence justifies a short clarification rather than a rejection. Conversely, do not reward a long resume simply for supplying more text; relevance and ownership still matter.
Next step
For the next resume, record one supported role signal, one uncertain point, and the exact interview question that would resolve it before deciding.